Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Western Daily Press. Tuesday 07 Jun 1910
Page 9 Column 6 and 7
BRISTOL WOMAN'S DEATH AT ILFRACOMBE.
COUNTY COURT SEQUEL.
There was a sequel to the recent fatality at the Britannia Hotel, Ilfracombe, in which a waitress, named Eliza FRANKLIN, was burned to death, at the Bristol County Court, yesterday, when his Honour Judge AUSTIN decided an arbitration case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Mr. E. J. TAMLYN, the licensee of the hotel, paid into court £142 8s 6d, having deducted from his minimum liability of £150 the funeral expenses and doctor's fees. John Frederick Jones FRANKLIN, a child of the deceased, was the applicant through his next friend, Mrs. Sarah Ann PEATY, for the full amount of £150. Mr. H. R. WANSBROUGH represented Mr TAMLYN, and Mr F. E. METCALFE was for the applicant. Mr B. R. VACHELL and Mr DAWE, clerk to the Taunton Guardians, applied on behalf of two other illegitimate children for a share of the compensation, an application which was opposed by Mr METCALFE.
In the first case, Mr METCALFE referred to the death of the woman FRANKLIN. She was taking some things off the kitchen fire at the hotel when a spark flew out and caught her dress on fire.
There was a lengthy legal argument, in which Mr WANSBROUGH submitted that Mr TAMLYN had a right to make the deductions.
His Honour referred to the fact that Mr VACHELL was not taking part in the argument on that point, and suggested that perhaps he did not take a sentimental view.
Mr VACHELL: I am not objecting. I know my friend Mr WANSBROUGH is absolutely wrong in point of law. (Laughter.)
His Honour said that after the accident the respondent, in kindness, employed a doctor while the poor girl was alive, and buried her when she was dead. The respondent said he ought to be allowed to deduct the expenses. The question did not arise in cases of total dependency, but it might in cases of partial dependency. He was bound by a cast-iron law to say that £150 was the proper sum to be paid even if the employer had kindly and properly paid the expenses. He gave judgment for the applicant.
Mr WANSBROUGH applied for all the money to remain in court for a fortnight pending the possibility of an appeal.
His Honour decided that only the sum in dispute - £7 11s 6d – should be so treated(?).
In the second case, concerning the dependency of the three children, Mrs PEATY gave evidence on behalf of the little boy, John Frederick Jones FRANKLIN, who was asleep in her arms.
His Honour suggested that it would be advisable for someone else to take the boy, as he might fall out of the box and break his neck, and that would end the case at once. (Laughter.)
Mr. VACHELL: I should get all the money then. (Laughter.)
A policeman took the little chap with him, but when the latter woke up to find himself in the arms of the law he noisily gave vent to his feelings.
Mr VACHELL suggested that the child should be told that Mr METCALFE had won the first case for him – it might comfort him. (Laughter.)
The witness said that she was paid 5s a week by the woman FRANKLIN for the child, and the mother also found the clothes. When not in a situation the woman stayed with witness. The child was born in December, 1907, and had been with witness ever since it was six weeks old.
In reply to Mr METCALFE, witness said that she did not know that the deceased had any other children.
Mr VACHELL, on behalf of the child represented by him, called Mrs Elizabeth FRANKLIN, of Stoke St. Gregory, near Taunton, the mother of the deceased woman, who stated that she had charge of one of the children – a girl nine years of age. She took the child to enable her daughter to get a situation. It was five years ago that she last saw her daughter, who agreed to pay 1s 6d a week for the child. That payment was kept up for about five years.
In reply to Mr DAWE, witness stated that her daughter had another baby – a boy – who was born at Union Gate, Taunton. She had not seen that child since its early days. The relieving officer saw her about the child, but she refused to take it, as she already had one child of her daughter's to keep.
By Mr METCALFE: She had had no knowledge of her daughter's whereabouts for the past five years, and she had had nothing for the child's keep in that time.
His Honour said that he was prepared to accept the proof of identity.
Mr VACHELL, in his address to the Judge, suggested that dependency meant liability to contribute to the support, and there was no doubt that in law this woman, at the time of her death, was liable to support all the children. It would be a miserable thing for one of the children to have all the money. He quoted a number of cases, and introduced one as follows: “Here is an Irish case, KELLY – K-E-L-L-Y.” (Laughter.)
Mr DAWE submitted that the fact of the second boy being in the workhouse did not rebut the presumption of dependency. Every penny that the Guardians had spent on the child was really a debt due from the mother, which showed that the child was really dependent.
Mr METCALFE mentioned that the woman's wages were £16 a year – tips could not be proved. After providing for the one boy she would have 3s a week with which to provide for the two other children. It was absolutely certain that she could not provide anything for them. In regard to the one in the workhouse there was the strong fact that there had never been a suggestion that she had ever attempted to pay one penny. In the case of the girl, if dependency were held, the sum of 1s 6d a week only represented £11 14s of the total amount of compensation. He submitted that the mother and father had never attempted to do anything until they found there was some money about
His Honour, in giving judgment, hinted at the possibility of an appeal, and said that the boy, John Frederick JONES-FRANKLIN, was clearly a dependent of the deceased. In the cases of Beatrice Matilda and Joseph Percy Shaw there was a presumption that the children were dependents. He proceeded to analyse the facts, and pointed out that after providing for the boy with Mrs PEATY she had an extremely small margin left. He came to the conclusion that she did not, in fact, maintain either of the two, and he did not see how she could have done so. In his opinion, the two were not her dependents. He was sorry to have to come to that conclusion, and he would much rather have divided the money amongst the three.
“You realised what I said about an appeal, Mr VACHELL?” added his Honour.
“Oh, painfully so, your Honour,” replied the barrister, amid laughter.
Arrangements for the payment of the money were subsequently made.